Are conservatives in both Houses of the Congress so desperate to pass President
Bush's $350 billion tax cut package that they're just willing to chuck their
principles, just so that they can claim that they are "cutting taxes" to score
points with their constituency?

It seems that way to me. After all the GOP-controlled House and Senate have
already passed the package, and conservatives just want to make it sound like
they are "cutting taxes" when actually the cuts are diminutive in comparison to
the original $726 billion tax cut. Moderate Republicans were, according to
Yahoo! News, "concerned about record deficits," yet they "refused to sign onto
any bill cutting taxes more than $350 billion over the coming decade." How nice!
Moderates who, like their conservative cousins, espouse the liberal class
warfare mindset but cry about "record deficits!" With that kind of a response,
you would think that they would go into a song and dance, just to pry support
out of the hearts of duped taxpayers. After all, why ruin the fun when the name
of the game is to loot the American people of the fruits of their labor (their
hard-earned money) and give it to those who simply have no right to that money
in the first place?

Seriously, the Republicans have outsmarted the American people. (Not that any of
the taxpayers give a hoot about this issue anyway.) What never surprises me is
the fact that both the collectivists on the left and the right refuse to
backpedal on the argument that a tax cut over $350 billion levies a "cost" to
the American people. Anyone who is well versed in Economics 101 can easily
inform the public that tax cuts, regardless of their size, do not "cost" a dime
to those who pay taxes. That "cost" is allotted to the government. And while
we're on the subject, that "cost" to the government is actually a good thing,
considering that the government has no business putting its hands on that money
from the get-go.

Nevertheless let's not kid ourselves here. The tax cut is not just piddling, but
also an embarrassment to the principle of fiscal conservatism. With the tax cut
reduced from its previous form to its current state as it is, it will only give
$35 billion a year to those within the higher income brackets within a 10-year
period. Do the math. With the current fiscal year deficit now exceeding $300
billion (an estimate provided by the Office of Budget and Management) and the
total federal deficit surpassing $2 trillion, it makes the "huge" tax cut sound
like it was an April Fools' Day joke. (It might as well have been anyway.)

How is that possible, you say? Well, it's really simple. The original $726
billion figure, if retained and passed in its initial form, would have given
those with taxable incomes a $73 billion tax cut annually. That would have
amounted to a measly 4 percent of the total deficit. (Bear in mind that Congress
doesn't have any money to pay its bills.) A deficit, when incurred, is the
product of the president and both Houses of the Congress spending more money
than they receive in taxes. The enormous increasing amount of spending is due to
our recent war with Iraq, and there are no signs of any halts in the increases
anytime soon.

A ridiculous aspect of the current tax-cut debate in Washington is that huge tax
cuts are "irresponsible" and are earmarked for the rich. This truly isn't
something new. The Democrats have been pushing this hogwash for years. That even
includes many left wing observers, writers, and pundits who will use any excuse
to justify the increases in spending, the borrowing, and the level of taxation
in order to characterize the GOP as a threat to the welfare state and the
federal programs which the government provides.

The top dog Democrats, especially those in the Senate Finance Committee, are
just as pathetic. "I'm not opposed to creating millionaires. I think the country
needs more millionaires," quipped Senator Mary Landrieu of Louisiana. "What I'm
opposed to is constantly this other side coming to the floor trying to give
breaks to the people that are already at the top at the expense of those at the
bottom." Really?

Democratic Senator Max Baucus of Montana, who serves on the Republican-
controlled Senate Finance Committee, took potshots at the dividends tax cut
plan, saying, "This is absurd. This is irresponsible." Irresponsible?
Irresponsible for whom? Those at the top of the income ladder?

The "me too" collectivists within the Democratic Party just simply don't get it.
Tax cuts allow people to retain more of their hard-earned incomes. When tax
rates are lowered, families are able to save on their tax costs and have more
control of their pre-tax dollars than they would without the cuts. Thus, the
incentive for savings is energized, and those with more money in their pockets
are able to save, give away, invest, or spend. When corporate tax rates are
lowered, businesses have more incentives to save, invest, give away, or spend
their funds. They are very likely to invest their money in improved customer
service, and spend on research and development to provide more efficient and
better products and services for their consumers. This also means that workers
and businesses are able to produce more, which, in return, will enable economic
growth. Let's not forget that this always translates to more taxable revenues
for the government. (Not that it's a good thing.)

However, when tax rates are raised, both families and businesses have fewer
incentives to save on their tax costs and have less control of their tax dollars
than the other way around. When this occurs, there are no savings and no room
for growth and investment. Once the money is taken, it's gone. Eventually it
will be spent on projects to placate the statists' politically-sweetened
supporters, whether or not we want them.

Nevertheless, the liberal collectivists in the House and the Senate keep touting
the class warfare mantra by maintaining that huge tax cuts are earmarked for the
wealthy. They say that low-income earners - those who earn $20,000 or less a
year - should be getting those cuts. Has it ever occurred to them that one can't
get a tax cut if he or she hasn't paid a dime in federal income taxes?

A few members of the class war crowd say, "But of course they do pay taxes! They
pay the Social Security and Medicare taxes! Shouldn't they get a tax cut?" Now
we're getting somewhere. It wasn't too long ago that some of the class warriors
argued that payments to Social Security and Medicare were merely
"contributions." (Note: the "C" in FICA stands for "contributions.") Perhaps one
should be reminded that a refusal to pay those taxes results in arrest,
prosecution, conviction, and incarceration, along with the possibility of a
fine.

Keep in mind that, in 1998 dollars, the top 1 percent who made over $269,000 a
year paid 34.75 percent in federal taxes. The top 10 percent who raked in over
$83,000 a year paid over 65 percent in taxes, and the top 25 percent who earned
over $50,000 a year paid over 82 percent in taxes.

Besides the liberal collectivists are the ones who aren't serious about slashing
taxes. What they want is to give tax cuts to those who don't pay taxes and to
raise taxes on those who do. Where's the fairness in that?

Conservatives who abandon their principles just to get an inferior tax cut plan
in motion are useless to freedom. By doing so, they become collectivists and
central planners like their liberal collectivist counterparts. They are just
simply an aberration - a morally bankrupt, perverse, and deviant representation
of progressive liberalism gone insane.

The unseen tragedy in all of this is that leftists and rightists think they own
this issue.

The only way to end the immoral, perverse confiscation of incomes is to repeal
all taxes on income, which would include the federal income tax, the tax on
dividends, the corporate income tax, the marriage penalty tax, and the payroll
tax and replace the entire tax code with nothing. While we're at it, let's
repeal the 16th Amendment so that another tax code is not established. That
would also entail the abolition of the Internal Revenue Service, and that is
long overdue.

The sooner the tax system is dismantled, the better off we all are in the end.
By taking this action, we will free ourselves from the clutches of the tax
organism and shrink the bloated leviathan to its intended constitutional form.